@srol @chr I think that's more of a fair comparison than you'd expect, download time for a couple of floppies could easily be over an hour in 1993, only the highest end users were on 14.4k at home then. Plebs still on 9600 or (horror) 2400 were still very common.
It didn't run very will on "anything" in 1993 either. I think it was the driving factor for a lot of 486 sales.
@srol @chr yeah things moved FAST in those few years. I started working in a small PC shop in late 1994, just at the dawn of people starting to buy Pentiums but plenty of 486es still going out the door too. Two years later and most everything from then was pretty much junk.
It was pretty normal then for someone to just name a specific game when you asked them what kind of specs they needed.
I'm still a bit shocked by how long our computers tend to be "current" for these days.
I still have machines from 2012 in regular price today doing their jobs just fine, using the current release of Debian.
I would have thought it absurd to try and use the 386 I got in 1990 on a regular basis in 1997 (would windows 95 even run on it?). I actually think that is a great thing, and I hope some day we can make mobile devices follow the same path.
I realised when I was ordering the replacement that it was an i7 from 2009. Not too shabby.
Windows 95 needed a 386 DX40 with 4MB minimum. I recall this because there was a great quote about this spec from MS, something like "if you're happy with Windows 3.1 performance on your DX40, you'll be happy with Window 95 on it."
Consider this a friendly, local pub. Make yourself at home, bring your friends, have a good time! Meet new people, have a laugh, enjoy the ambience, and the Oxford commas.